TEMPLATE FOR THE MILITARY COMPLAINT AGAINST BARACK OBAMA

(Text in this Complaint has been updated to reflect the changes related to BO’s ‘Presidential’ status since the initial posting.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE *DISTRICT OF *
*DIVISION

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a
BARRY SOETORO,
Defendant

CIVIL ACTION
NO.:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF


SUMMARY OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs *, *, and * all served proudly in the United States military and were honorably discharged from active duty status subject to recall. On entering the service, these men swore a solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” So help them God. At all times in the past, they have faithfully served their country consistent with this sacred oath. And while it is true that, the Uniform Code of Military Justice metes out penalties for failure to carry out the mandates of this oath; this threat of adverse consequences is not what has motivated these men to put their lives on the line for their country. Rather, it was their deep abiding faith in our Constitutional Republic that formed the basis of this allegiance. However, on January 20, 2009, once Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, their faith and allegiance will be tested as never before. Because having closely monitored events related to this latest election cycle, Plaintiffs now share grave concerns as to whether Defendant is eligible for the job. Specifically, under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, is he a “natural born citizen”?

Back in December 2007, in the document he submitted to the Secretary of State of Arizona announcing he would participate in that state’s February Presidential nominating primary, Defendant did “solemnly swear” he was a “natural born citizen.” But by June 2008, he publicly acknowledged concerns as to his Constitutional eligibility for the job. At that time, he created an internet web site entitled “Fight the Smears,” with this stated purpose: to “spread the truth.” For example, here’s what Defendant posted on that site to address rumors he held dual U.S./Kenya citizenship.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

But being born with dual U.S./Britain citizenship means he is not a natural born citizen.

To address rumors he was not a U.S. citizen, Defendant posted information under the heading, “The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate.” Below was the photocopy of a document entitled “Certification of Live Birth,” State of Hawaii, with this added caption: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.” Unlike a regular Certificate of Live Birth, which is filled with several boxes containing information like baby’s height and weight; the name of the hospital in which he was born; and the signature of the doctor attending the delivery, this Certification contains little more information excerpted from the original than the names of Defendant’s father and mother and that he was born in 1961 on the Island of Oahu. Yet he insisted posting this document established once and for all he was born in Hawaii. Only, in 1961, Hawaiian Revised Statutes §338-17.8 provided that the director of health may issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate for a child born outside of the country as long as the child’s parents declared the State of Hawaii was their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of the child.

In other words, under Hawaiian law, Defendant could have obtained a Certificate of Live Birth showing he was born in Hawaii even if that isn’t where he was born. Indeed, Hawaiian officials did say recently they have Defendant’s original Certificate of Live Birth but they did not say it shows he was born in Hawaii. He could also have been issued a Certificate of Live Birth that proves he was born in another country. Of course, being born in another country means, he is not a natural born citizen.

Mr. Obama also insisted this Hawaiian Certification he posted on the internet establishes he is a “native citizen.” Why did he swear to the Secretary of State in Arizona he is a “natural born citizen”? Having taught Constitutional Law, surely Defendant knows the difference between “native” and “natural born”; and that being only native born makes him ineligible to be President.

Defendant prominently displays on his site the logo for the organization called FactCheck, linking his site to their web page. FactCheck explained that Mr. Obama’s campaign made a copy of his “birth certificate” public after speculation by people they characterized as “conservative bloggers” that he might not be a “natural-born citizen.” Reminding everyone they are a “nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters,” they assured the public, Mr. Obama was born in the U.S.A. But this is untrue. In fact, the real name of FactCheck is Annenberg Political Fact Check. And Annenberg Political Fact Check is wholly funded by the Annenberg Foundation. That’s the same outfit that hired Mr. Obama to Chair the Board of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and handed over to him tens of millions of Mr. Annenberg’s dollars which he then doled out to community groups like ACORN and Bill Ayers’ Small Schools Workshops in a failed attempt to raise test scores of students enrolled in Chicago public schools.

Nevertheless, despite these long-standing close ties between Defendant and Annenberg, when voters contacted members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives with concerns as to whether Defendant is a natural born citizen, these members of Congress assured their constituents, there was nothing to worry about because the “non-partisan” FactCheck has confirmed his qualifications. And, in his latest response to a lawsuit questioning his eligibility, Mr. Obama ask the court to note that FactCheck – he even cites the web address – posted he’s for real.

On the other hand, if both of Mr. Obama’s parents were American citizens and Defendant was actually born in Hawaii, these facts alone fail to establish he is a natural born citizen.

In his memoir, Dreams from my Father, Defendant wrote that his mother married Lolo Soetoro, whom he calls his stepfather, when he was 4 years old, and moved her son to Mr. Soetoro’s native Indonesia. He remained silent throughout the book as to whether he was adopted. But during that time, only Indonesian citizens were allowed to attend school; and last year, the Associated Press released a copy of his elementary school registration. This document records his name is Barry Soetoro – he wrote he was called Barry as a child – and it lists his nationality is Indonesian. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; American law on dual citizenship deferred to the law of the foreign sovereign. In other words, being adopted by Lolo Soetoro would make him a citizen of Indonesia, and he would no longer be an American citizen.

Defendant’s mother brought him back to Hawaii at age 10. If he passed through U.S. Customs and Immigration on re-entering the country, now he would be a “naturalized” but not “natural born citizen.” And naturalized citizens are Constitutionally ineligible to be President. She left him in Hawaii with her father and mother, where he remained until attending Occidental College, in California. Last April, at a private fundraiser in that state, he let slip that in 1981, on a break from college, he spent a few weeks in Pakistan. Does the passport he presented that allowed his entrance into that country show whether he was a citizen of the United States of America; or Kenya; or Indonesia?

Despite all of these unanswered questions as to his Constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, Defendant nonetheless managed to become the nominee for President of the Democratic Party when super delegates supported him in direct proportion to money he donated to their political campaigns, while his opponent, Senator Clinton, amassed the majority of the popular votes cast in the primary and earned more pledged delegates from votes cast for her than for him. And he got (the names of his Electors) onto the general election ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; and received the majority of popular votes cast in the general election.

Two days after the election, Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike in the Morning” show called Honorable Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., at the Embassy of Kenya in Washington, D.C. for reaction to his countryman being elected the American President. Ambassador Ogego was understandably proud. He proclaimed that the President’s “birthplace” in Kenya is “already an attraction.” Asked whether the Kenyan government intended to identify the spot with some sort of marker, the Ambassador assured the interviewers, the site is “already well known.”

Again, being born in Kenya means, Mr. Obama cannot be President because he is not a natural born citizen.

Members of the Electoral College, long-time loyalists and activists selected by the Democratic Party cast their votes for President on December 15. They went along with their Party. Congress counted and certified these Electoral Votes on January 8. Still, no proof exists Defendant is a natural born citizen.

Being a natural born citizen is a Constitutional prerequisite to being President but Defendant has failed to establish he is eligible for the job. Plaintiffs, haunted by well-founded concerns as to whether he is a natural born citizen are confronted with this untenable Hobson’s choice. Does the fact he was sworn in as President on January 20 mean, they must now honor their vows to protect and defend the Constitution by disobeying what could be an illegal order issued by the man unlawfully acting as Commander in Chief, thereby facing certain discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Conduct up to and including prosecution for crimes punishable by imprisonment or execution? Or, should they face such discipline by obeying an order that in fact, is illegal, in violation of the sacred oath they took on behalf of their country?

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff * served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, Medical Corp. Lieutenant Colonel * is the recipient of several service awards including the Air Force Outstanding Unit with Valor; and Meritorious Service Award. Honorably discharged from active duty status, he is subject to recall. * resides at *.

2. Plaintiff * served as a Colonel in the U.S. Army. Colonel *is the recipient of several service awards including the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and the Legion of Merit. Honorably discharged from active duty status, he is subject to recall. * resides at *.

3. Plaintiff * served as a Specialist 4th Class in the U.S. Army. Specialist *is the recipient of several service awards including the Army Service Ribbon and Good Conduct Medal. Honorably discharged from active duty status, he is subject to recall. * currently resides at *.

4. Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was the candidate for President under the Democratic Party. He is the winner of the votes cast by the Electoral College on December 15, 2008 as counted and Certified by Congress on January 8, 2009. On January 20, 2009 he was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America. His current office address is the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20500.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. chapter 47; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201.

6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because Parties have substantial ties to the *District of *.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Upon entering the service, Plaintiffs swore a solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
8. Under the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I, the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
9. Defendant was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
10. The President is the only federal office holder who must be a natural born citizen.
11. No provision of federal or state law requires the candidate for President to prove he is a natural born citizen.
12. No provision of federal or state law requires government officials to verify the candidate for President is a natural born citizen.
13. Plaintiffs have been unable to confirm that any government official verified Defendant is a natural born citizen.
14. Plaintiffs share grave concerns as to whether Defendant is a natural born citizen.
15. The maiden name of Defendant’s mother was Stanley Ann Dunham.
16. Ms. Dunham was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.
17. Defendant’s mother married Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.) in February, 1961.
18. Mr. Obama, Sr. was a national of Kenya, a colony of Great Britain.
19. His citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
20. Defendant was born in August, 1961.
21. Defendant’s father and mother divorced in 1964.
22. In their divorce papers, his father acknowledged paternity of Defendant.
23. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Defendant became a British citizen at birth.
24. In June 2008, Defendant created an internet web site entitled “Fight the Smears” stating his purpose was to counter “rumors” about his citizenship status.
25. On that site, he posted these facts: his biological father was a Kenyan national; in 1961, Kenya was a colony of the British Empire; and under British law, he inherited British citizenship.
26. Defendant explained this meant he was born with dual U.S./Kenya citizenship.
27. In 1995, Defendant published a memoir entitled Dreams from my Father.
28. He wrote his biological father and mother were divorced and she married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national.
29. His mother and he left Hawaii to live in Indonesia.
30. He wrote his mother gave birth to his sister, Maya Soetoro.
31. He calls Mr. Soetoro his “stepfather.”
32. He writes as a child, he was known as Barry.
33. He writes in Indonesia, he attended a Catholic elementary school.
34. In August 2008, Associated Press reporter Tatan Fyuflana posted an image of a registration form for a student named Barry Soetoro at the Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia.
35. In that school registration form, the name of the father of Barry Soetoro was listed as Lolo Soetoro.
36. On the form, the Nationality of Barry Soetoro was listed as Indonesian.
37. Under Indonesian law, the child adopted by an Indonesian father is Indonesian.
38. Indonesian law at that time disallowed dual citizenship.
39. U.S. law on dual citizenship deferred to the law of the foreign sovereign.
40. Under Hawaiian law, an adoption by a foreigner of a minor whose birth is registered in Hawaii resulted in the issuance of a new Certification of Live Birth issued in the name of the child’s adoptive father.
41. Defendant’s mother divorced his stepfather in 1980.
42. Divorce records showed two issues from the marriage with Mr. Soetoro, a child under 18 and a child over 18.
43. Defendant writes his mother moved him out of Indonesia when he was 10 and repatriated him to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents.
44. He writes he lived in Hawaii until enrolling in Occidental College in California.
45. Defendant announced at a fundraiser in San Francisco in April 2008 that while in college, he left the United States for a visit to Pakistan.
46. Asked about this disclosure of that Pakistan trip by ABC News, Defendant’s campaign confirmed he spent 3 weeks in Pakistan in 1981.
47. When he returned from his Pakistan trip, Defendant presented his passport to re-enter the United States.
48. In 1996, Defendant won election to the state senate in Illinois.
49. In 2005, Defendant won election to the U.S. Senate.
50. In 2006, while a member of the U.S. Senate, Defendant visited Kenya.
51. While in Kenya, he campaigned alongside fellow Luo, Raila Odinga, running for the Office of President of Kenya.
52. In 2007, Defendant announced he was running for the Office of President of the United States.
53. The Democratic Party named Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, as the Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
54. Senator Hillary Clinton won the majority of popular votes cast in the Democratic Presidential Primary.
55. Primary votes cast for Senator Clinton resulted in more pledged delegates for her than for Defendant.
56. Super delegates supporting Defendant enabled him to reach the requisite delegate votes to secure the Party’s nomination.
57. In August 2008, Ms. Pelosi signed an Official Certification of Nomination distributed to the chief elections officials in 49 states and the District of Columbia which read, “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively: For President of the United States, Barack Obama…”
58. Ms. Pelosi signed a separate Certification of Nomination for the State of Hawaii in which she added a Certification of Constitutional eligibility for office which read, “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution: For President of the United States, Barack Obama…”
59. Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113 requires that the political party of a candidate must provide a statement that the candidate is legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the United States Constitution.
60. Elections officials in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia put Defendant’s name onto the general election ballot as the Democratic candidate for President.
61. Democratic Party officials in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia chose Electors from among long-standing Party activists and loyalists.
62. State Party officials submitted their slate of Democratic Electors to the elections officials for placement on the ballot.
63. Electors for Defendant won the popular vote in the general election for President on November 4, 2008.
64. Two days after the election, Honorable Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., told an American radio station that Defendant’s birthplace in Kenya is “already an attraction.”
65. The Ambassador assured the interviewers even without a formal government marker, the site is “already well known.”
66. Members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Defendant for President on December 15, 2008.
67. Members of the U.S. Congress counted and Certified the votes cast by the Electoral College on January 8, 2009.
68. In December 2007 Defendant submitted a signed statement to the Secretary of State of Arizona indicating he would seek nomination as a candidate for the Office of President from the Democratic Party, swearing he is a “natural born citizen of the United States.”
69. In June 2008 Defendant insisted on his “Fight the Smears” web site he can prove he is a “native citizen.”
70. He posted the photocopy of a document he wrote was “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.”
71. The words “Department of Health,” “State of Hawaii, U.S.A.,” and “Certification of Live Birth” were printed across the top of the photocopy.
72. This “Certification” identified his father is Barack Hussein Obama, whose race is listed as African; his place of birth is Hawaii; and his date of birth is August, 1961.
73. In 1961, Hawaiian Revised Statutes §338-17.8, Certificates for children born out of State, provides that the director of health may issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate for a child born outside of the country as long as the child’s parents declared the State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of the child.
74. Defendant prominently displays on his “Fight the Smears” site the logo for the organization called FactCheck, linking his site to their web page.
75. According to their web site, FactCheck.org is “a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”
76. The complete name of FactCheck is Annenberg Political Fact Check.
77. FactCheck was created and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation.
78. The Annenberg Foundation previously hired Mr. Obama to Chair the Board of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge (“CAC”).
79. The stated mission of the CAC was to fund programs that could raise the test scores of students enrolled in Chicago public schools.
80. As Chair of the CAC, Mr. Obama doled out tens of millions of Foundation dollars to community groups like ACORN and Bill Ayers’ Small Schools Workshops.
81. Test scores failed to measure any improvement as compared to students not involved with the Challenge.
82. FactCheck operates out of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
83. FactCheck.org posted on their web site that in Defendant’s campaign offices in Chicago, FactCheck staffers saw the original of the Certification posted on Defendant’s web site.
84. FactCheck called this Certification a “short-form Birth Certificate.”
85. FactCheck alleged the State of Hawaii does not offer the option of requesting a long form Birth Certificate.
86. On November 1, 2008, just 3 (three) days before the general election, FactCheck posted a notice alleging the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu.
87. Plaintiffs are unable to find any evidence that any official from Hawaii made this statement FactCheck attributed to them.
88. The disclaimer at the bottom of the FactCheck.org web site specifically states that the University of Pennsylvania is not responsible for the material they put out.
89. The disclaimer at the bottom of the FactCheck.org web site specifically states that only FactCheck staff are responsible for representations made by FactCheck.
90. Constituents contacted members of Congress expressing concerns whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution for the Office of President.
91. In response to concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Harry Reid, Democrat Majority Leader from Nevada, claimed “Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawai’i.”
92. Senator Reid wrote that “his birth certificate is available on the Web site for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Annenberg Political Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org.”
93. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey told constituents, “The non-partisan organization Political Fact Check (this group monitors the factual accuracy of political information) has examined Mr. Obama’s birth certificate and they report that it is valid and he is a U.S. citizen. I have included a link to a Newsweek article that was written on this subject and includes links to pictures of the birth certificate (http://www.newsweek.com/id/154599).”
94. He concluded, therefore, Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
95. Newsweek credits that article which Senator Menendez asked constituents to read, to a member of FactCheck.org staff.
96. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Representative Jay Inslee, Democrat from Washington said that President-Elect Obama has indeed provided his actual paper Certification of Live Birth to “the Annenberg Foundation’s non-partisan “Factcheck.org” website.”
97. He wrote that “the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu and that he is therefore eligible to hold the office of President.”
98. Responding to the concerns of his constituents, U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat from Wisconsin said “Hawaii became a state on August 21st, 1959 and President-elect Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, making him a United States citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”
99. Senator Kohl also wrote that President-elect Obama’s birth certificate has been made public, and is widely available online; and that “this document has been authenticated by a variety of sources, including the Hawaii Department of Health and the Annenberg Public Policy Center.”
100. Responding to concerns raised by her constituents, U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat from Wisconsin wrote that Mr. Obama “posted his birth certificate on his
campaign website indicating he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.”
101. She further stated that “media accounts report that Hawaiian officials verified health department records and determined there is no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.”
102. Responding to concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Representative John Sarbanes, Democrat from Maryland said state officials in Hawaii have confirmed that their records indicate President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.
103. Responding to concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Democrat from Wisconsin stated that “claims that Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the nation’s highest office are unfounded,” and “No credible evidence has surfaced to call into question his eligibility to run.”
104. Responding to concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator David Vitter, Republican from Louisiana wrote that “Hawaii state officials have verified that President-elect Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, making him a natural born citizen.”
105. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Representative Steven LaTourette, Republican from Ohio said, “Hawaii state officials say they have checked health department records and confirmed that there is no doubt that the president elect was born in Hawaii.”
106. Representative LaTourette advised, “The Secretary of State of each state holds the responsibility of verifying that each presidential candidate meets the requirements as
outlined in the U.S. Constitution.”
107. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma said “with regard to Senator Obama’s birth certificate, in June 2008, Senator Obama produced a certificate of live birth from the State of Hawaii Department of Health…”
108. Senator Inhofe added that “Hawaii’s Health director verified the Health Department has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on file.”
109. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat from Ohio said “President-Elect Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”
110. Senator Brown wrote that “Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens.”
111. He also alleged that the “Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President-Elect Obama’s birth certificate.”
112. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican from Alabama said lawsuits have been filed alleging that Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and therefore is constitutionally ineligible for the office; and that “Senate ethics rules preclude him from becoming personally involved in pending litigation.”
113. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan said, “President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by his
official birth certificate. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States.”
114. Responding to the concerns raised by her constituents, U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat from Maryland said, “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. Since President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen.”
115. She added, “He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts.”
116. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Mike Crapo, Republican from Idaho said, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States.”
117. Senator Crapo wrote, “Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency.”
118. Under the U.S. Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
119. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, questioning or defying the authority of the Commander in Chief subjects Plaintiffs to Court Martial and discipline up to and including execution.
120. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, refusal to obey an order from a superior officer during war time subjects Plaintiffs to Court Martial and discipline up to and including execution.
121. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, delivering an illegal order subjects Plaintiffs to Court Martial and discipline up to and including execution.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief

122. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 121 as if fully set forth herein.
123. Given that Defendant’s father was a British/Kenyan national, then Plaintiffs have a good faith belief and understanding he is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, in honoring both the letter and spirit of their oath under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are liable to discipline including but not limited to imprisonment and execution.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court will Declare whether under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant is a natural born citizen.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief

124. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 123 as if fully set forth herein.
125. Assuming Defendant’s father was a U.S. citizen but Defendant was born outside of the United States of America, then Plaintiffs have a good faith belief and understanding he is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, in honoring both the letter and spirit of their oath under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are liable to discipline including but not limited to imprisonment and execution.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court will Declare whether under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant is a natural born citizen.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief

126. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 125 as if fully set forth herein.
127. Assuming Defendant’s father was a U.S. citizen; that he was born in the United States of America; and that his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national; then Plaintiffs have a good faith belief and understanding he became an Indonesian national and not a natural born citizen and, therefore, in honoring both the letter and spirit of their oath under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are liable to discipline including but not limited to imprisonment and execution.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court will Declare whether under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant is a natural born citizen.

ADDITIONAL RELIEF REQUESTED

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court will award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and expenses of this action, including attorney’s fees, and further relief as this Court shall deem just and equitable.

Date: January 20, 2009 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

53 Responses to TEMPLATE FOR THE MILITARY COMPLAINT AGAINST BARACK OBAMA

  1. ladyhawkke says:

    Excellent work, jb. I want to thank you for all you are doing to save our country from a usurper. Let’s hope this case is the one to survive the standing issue.

  2. Brian H says:

    Beyond the NBC issue, too, is the possibility that he never renewed his US citizenship after being made an Indonesian citizen by adoption. He had one year to do that on obtaining his majority, and there’s no evidence it ever happened.

    So, as Berg says, maybe he’s an illegal alien and should be deported. After serving his prison sentences for fraud and grand larceny, of course. And maybe for offing Granny.

    Brian H: I intentionally skirted the citizenship. The set is “natural born citizen.” If he cannot be included in this, the subset of citizen is immaterial to the purpose of this Complaint. I will leave the prosecution and resolution of what is to be done with an undocumented alien, to you and others, with thanks. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. wodiej says:

    thanks jb, very detailed and undeniable that Barack Obama is NOT a natural born US citizen. Personally I don’t even think he was born in Hawaii. I think he was born in Kenya. jmo….great job.

  4. Rabblerouser says:

    Thanks, jb. I know you’ve been working for a long time on this issue; we need people like you if we are ever going to expose this usurper and take back our country. Let’s hope this case withstands the political corruption that seems to have spread to all branches of government, sadly even the judicial branch.

  5. Ted says:

    JUST ONE DAY BEFORE CONGRESS VOTES ON ELECTORAL ‘VOTE’ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE DR. ORLY’S LIGHTFOOT CASE!

    MESSAGE — NOW RENEWED AS AN ALERT — TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:

    When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American, citizen) — fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.

    The preferable choice (especially for the Democrats) — IN WHAT WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT AND HISTORIC CONGRESSIONAL VOTE SINCE THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR — should seem obvious.

    *SPECIAL AUDIO LINK MESSAGE TO JOHN MCCAIN:

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=691

  6. ladyhawkke says:

    jbjd, this is great. If any case has “standing,” this is the one. We need an attorney to file suit on this ASAP. Time is running out.

    Ted, Judge Roberts is hearing Dr. Orly’s case AFTER the inauguration. Not a good sign.

  7. SvenMagnussen says:

    Would it be plausible to include in this filing Mr. Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration form with documented abnormalities indicating a fraudulent filing, i.e. DLN begins with the year (“08”) and not with the year of alleged filing, (“80”), postal stamp from incorrect year, etc .?

    Sven: Thank you for bringing this SSR information to my attention. I had read about this issue extensively on Atlas Shrugs (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/) and Debbie Schlussel’s blog (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/). However, in order to draft the FACTS of this Complaint, I struggled to incorporate only those facts material to a finding by the court that Plaintiffs have a reasonable good faith belief Defendant is not a NBC. To do this, as much as possible I cited to the spoken and written words of the Defendant and his colleagues. I was not trying to prove he is not a NBC but just that reasonable men could conclude he is not and, as a result of their conduct based on this belief, are subject to liability. In this document, I tried really hard not to sound hyperbolic; or conspiratorial, so as to minimize the chance that the substance of the Complaint, which is to obtain a court ruling on whether BO is a NBC, will be lost because people dismissed its authenticity for reasons of style. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. wodiej says:

    are all of these people REALLY THAT STUPID?? They don’t know the difference between a birth certificate and certification of live birth. They should have at least found out. No, they didn’t care, they were too busy drooling over having a democratic president. MORONS….

    wodiej: When the facts as we know them, are strung together in this way, the picture they paint of the utter incompetence of our members of Congress is really quite remarkable, isn’t it. Or maybe, those legislators who are not too corrupt to care and are not too stupid to care are too cowardly to do their jobs. Of course, this means, in the next Congressional election, we need to vote them out, right? ADMINISTRATOR

  9. jbjd

    Check with Dr Orly Taitz
    dr_taitz@yahoo.com.

    She has been seeking military personnel to participate:
    http://drorly.blogspot.com/
    “Sign up to become a plaintiff if you are active or retired military”
    http://defendourfreedoms.org/ATTENTIONALLMILITARYPERSONNEL.htm

    I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S., nor TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the U.S. ARMED FORCES, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall), and therefore when serving as an active member of the military, I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason.

    David: Thank you for that suggestion. I have contacted Orly; in fact, I drafted this Complaint using information on Plaintiffs she supplied. She can file this Complaint if she identifies a Plaintiff in her jurisdiction; otherwise, we have Plaintiffs in other jurisdictions but, no lawyers to bring the case. I concentrated on perfecting the Complaint so that anyone, lawyers and non-lawyers, can file this. I will also be drafting the Legal Memorandum that will accompany the Plaintiffs into the first scheduled hearing on the case. I don’t care who files this; I just want this filed. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. TitaG says:

    Very good job. However, in item n° 45 “… for a visit to Pakistan” shouldn’t something be added like “country which could not be entered with a US passport” ? (to emphisize the point that something was wrong there and not everybody might know that it was off limits to US citizens at that time)
    Anyway, I really hope you succeed.

    TitaG: I understand this allegation seems important to you. But as I explained to another poster, my intention is not to prove BO is not a NBC but to convince the Court, Plaintiffs have a good faith belief he is not. Proving whether the U.S. had a complete travel ban for Pakistan is outside of the scope of that purpose. Besides, we have no idea when BO actually traveled to Pakistan. What we know is, he said he did. And we know he came back into this country. So, I merely assumed he used a passport to re-enter the country. Of course, he can always deny this ‘FACT’ in his response. Plus, I want the Court to see obtaining this document provides another opportunity to establish where BO is from.
    ADMINISTRATOR

  11. smellytourist says:

    jbjd–I responded to your post on my blog
    http://smellytourist.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/the-lost-cause-and-our-ongoing-effort/

    If that link doesn’t work, I’m at

    http://www.smellytourist.wordpress.com

    In a nutshell, I think we’re wasting our time bringing these lawsuits against Obama.

    ST

    ST: I suppose if people believed there was nothing they could do about what they have a good faith to believe is the inauguration of a man Constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, then they would stop doing everything they could to prevent this from occurring.
    ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Mark says:

    “But being born with dual U.S./Britain citizenship means he is not a natural born citizen.”

    Did you do your homework and research the

    United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

    “And the children of citizens of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens”

    Be a real Patriot and refuse to cash your US Treasury checks, after the “usurper” becomes CIC on January 20.

    Mark: Good for you for pursuing the legal framework that governs our citizenry. In this case, you made a common mistake; that is, once you found what you thought was an applicable law, you failed to Shephardize, that is, to check whether this law was still good. And while it is true that the law to which you refer – Acts of March 26, 1790, 1 Statutes-at-Large 103 – did contain the phrasing you cite, this law was repealed just 5 years later, in 1795 and replaced by the Acts of January 29, 1795, 1 Statutes-at-Large 414, which did not contain the phrase “natural born citizen.” (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/Legislation%20from%201790%20-%201900.pdf. For a good analysis on this topic, see Judah Benjamin’s work on http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com.) Also, note that the Constitution, which can only be changed through the cumbersome amendment process; trumps ‘laws,’ which can be changed through Congress or by Presidential Order.
    ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Mark says:

    Thank you for your timely response.

    That is ok, you may have got me there. I am not a lawyer and can’t follow the law through the next 200 years.

    The US Supreme Court is NOT going to overturn the will of the voters.

    Like it or not, President Obama will take office in 2 weeks.

    I wish you well, I wish America well, and we will see where we are in 2012.

    Mark: Since we are a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy, the number of popular votes cast in the general election did not select the President. Rather, we voted only for Electors. In fact, the general election has not always been the method used to select the Electors, either. And, as you will recall, the ‘person’ who wins the most votes in the general election does not always go on to be elected President. Finally, let me emphasize that, while the general public is entitled to vote for anyone they want, the Electors are obligated under the Constitution to at least endorse someone who is Constitutionally eligible for the job. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html As an aside, I find interesting that while many people express the sanctity of ‘one person one vote’ when it comes to justifying their position that public opinion trumps Constitutional eligibility, few if any of them complained that Senator Hillary Clinton won the popular vote against Senator Barack Obama in the Democratic primary but Democratic Party super delegates nonetheless awarded the nomination to him. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Bob says:

    For those of you who stop with the Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization (1790), need to remember that the 1790 law was both amended and repealed, and by the time President Thomas Jefferson signed the amendments into Law, the children of American citizens born overseas were “ALIENS’ who needed to pass through Immigration upon arrival in this country for the first time.

    So, from the first term of Thomas Jefferson on Apr 14, 1802 to the only term of Franklin Pierce on Feb 10, 1855, they were ‘ALIENS.’ Yes, ‘ALIENS,’ which created surprise among many Americans who had been living abroad: but this is exactly what President Jefferson had signed into law, and exactly what he wanted them to be, “ALIENS.”

    So the law said that there would be no more ‘foreign-born’ citizens by ‘descent’ after April 15, 1802 —

    You can read all about this in Wong Kim Ark, referring to an article by Philadelphia attorney Horace Binney called, “Alienigenae . . .” The word means ‘foreign-born.’

    That is quite the opposite of ‘natural-born Citizen!’

    For more than 50 years, THIS was the law of the land.

    Bob: At the point at which a court of law finally reaches the substantive issue as to whether BO is a NBC – and I believe this is the case that could make it – I will put out a call for opinions from bloggers like you for the legal definition of “natural born citizen.” That is, if having reached the question, BO can prove he was born in this country.
    ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Kiuku says:

    Readers: Kiuku posted a first comment under another topic, but clearly intended for this one. So, for now, I merely copied the previous comment, as well as my response, to this second comment made by the same person under the appropriate topic. ADMINISTRATOR

    Submitted on 2009/01/10 at 4:07pm

    Pasted from my comments over at the New Agenda, where you are advertising your BLOG:

    JBJD,

    I read over the complaint. Former military here. I’m not a lawyer. And I read through nearly half of it. And I’m pretty sure, while a good attempt, it has no legal standing. You have to prove that he is not a natural born citizen. I don’t think, in fact, that anyone must prove their suitability to be POTUS, but if you are going to take this to a court, you’re going to have to bring proof that he is not a natural born citizen, and I don’t see any proof in there, and it almost seems like the writer can’t decide if he is insinuating that Obama is a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia, which you would have to get straight and get proof, otherwise it is simply insinuative, speculative and defamatory. I see a lot of speculation and things which are suggestive that he is not but you can’t just bring someone to court to make them prove they are a natural born citizen…I don’t think.

    The other issue is standing. And..former military, I understand that it is messed up. And I don’t know what to believe as far as Obama’s credentials. But I think it runs into the same problem that Mr. Berg is having, called “standing”. The court said that Mr. Berg, as a U.S citizen, didn’t have any standing to contest Obama’s presidential bid, which is in my opinion as a citizen and as a veteran is simply wrong and I hope the Supreme Court over rules that judgment on the 9th. (Don’t have the update on that)

    There is also a larger problem here JBJD, and I hope you get around to reading this before you advertise elsewhere. I’ve seen this and versions like it floating the internet. I’m not saying you don’t have cause to be suspicious about Obama’s credentials or cause to render your own investigation.

    One thing I’m used to, being former military, is people trying to use the good name and honor of military service members to further political agendas. It is ok if the military person themselves wants to contest something in a court of law, but trying to get military personnel to back something political, and convince them based on their strong patriotism is wrong.

    Further you might put them at risk.

    I don’t know if you are military yourself. If you are military yourself, I will ask you to reconsider. I am not saying this from any political standpoint. Because I read through it, and it is defamatory at worst, and the speculative nature of the “contest” is insubstantial at best.

    Obama is going to be inaugurated on the 20th and then he will be our sitting President. You address this to all military members as a military contest, and, therefore, in an act of passionate patriotism, an unwitting young soldier could sign his name and identifying information, while on active duty, or as a veteran drawing benefits.

    Because it is insubstantial, meaning there is no proof, a General could turn around and charge every single one of them with Subversion.

    I would.

    Revolting is for civilians; not military. If you had proof it would be another issue and this written contest would be much shorter.

    Further if this progresses past his inauguration, and you are military, you could be charged with inciting disobedience. I don’t know the technical term, but I know the UCMJ good enough to know you would be on shaky ground posting that online.

    They may consider it insightful, though alleging to be a legal process, you are posting it up on a blog.

    2) Sedition. Sedition requires a concert of action in resistance to civil authority. This differs from mutiny by creating violence or disturbance. See subparagraph c(1)( a) above.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm94.htm

    Examples of people charged with Sedition:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2006/5/24/retired_army_col_charged_with_sedition

    Kiuku: Clearly you have put a lot of time and effort into your analysis and then taken the time to write. Thank you so much. I understand that many people want this military Complaint to focus on whether BO is a NBC. However, there is no such legal cause of action called, ‘Court, I suspect the man who would be President is Constitutionally ineligible for the job so kick him out of there.’ Some of the previously filed Complaints were based on a legal cause of action called Mandamus. That is, a citizen petitions the Court to order a government official to perform what can be identified as a ministerial function of the job, that is, a function that is spelled out in the law. But, as I have stated in this Complaint, no provision of any state or federal law specifically requires any government official to establish whether the candidate for POTUS is a NBC. So, these Mandamus cases have failed. Berg’s case in federal court was based on the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, that is, the petitioner can ask the federal court to Declare a particular interpretation of law or fact that serves as the underlying basis for a pending or imminent legal liability. Only, in Berg’s case, the court agreed there was no pending or imminent legal liability, in that, the only injury Berg alleged would occur is that, having an ineligible candidate for POTUS on the ballot, he could not vote for the Democratic candidate of his choice. This military case is also based on the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, which states simply that, if you are about to face liability for obeying what you consider are your legal obligations based on an interpretation of law or fact then, you may petition the court to clarify in advance some set of laws or facts that would expose you to such liability. The requirements of pleading under this law, that is, what Plaintiffs must claim in a well-pleaded Complaint that will satisfy a Motion by Defendant to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, are spelled out in numerous government manuals and court cases, including guidelines for establishing the particularized harm that would accrue to Plaintiffs in the future, sufficient to establish their legal “standing” to bring this case now. I merely followed these leads, as well as the Opposition to Berg’s Complaint submitted by BO’s well-paid legal representatives. As for subjecting soldiers to harm for carrying out their oath of service, avoiding this prospect is the reason I sought out Plaintiffs currently on inactive duty status and am seeking to get someone to file this before BO is sworn into office. Now, please go back and read the whole Complaint. ADMINISTRATOR

    (This begins Kiuku’s second posting. ADMINISTRATOR)

    Both you and Dr. Taitz, and I’ll get over to her in a second, need to read military sedition laws.

    Because the punishment for sedition in a time of war, can be death.

    2) Sedition. Sedition requires a concert of action in resistance to civil authority. This differs from mutiny by creating violence or disturbance. See subparagraph c(1)( a) above.

    Examples of people charged with Sedition:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2006/5/24/retired_army_col_charged_with_sedition

    Please leave the military out of this.

    Kiuku: No military person has refused to follow any orders. The Plaintiffs in these cases are merely expressing a good faith belief BO is not a NBC and, in advance of facing that potential choice as to how best to carry out what they presently see as conflicting obligations, are asking the Court for guidance. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Bob says:

    Jbjd —

    You’ll probably do better by reading this:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=1v3d_OiiMWAC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Opinion+of+Edward+Bates+on+citizens+of+the+United+States&source=bl&ots=hmwVrrKzFc&sig=yq7D5-KIc_tJHOAF4-S98brbvPM#PPA1,M1

    or do a web search for the legal opinion of Attorney General Edward Bates at the request of Abraham Lincoln to be forwarded to officers in the field at the height of Civil War to help them to discern who was a ‘loyal Citizen’ of the United States.

  17. GoBama says:

    You people are fucking insane. 100% bat-shit crazy. Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii. This fact has been confirmed by THE STATE OF HAWAII. Barack Obama is over the age of 35. Barack Obama has lived in the United States for at least the last 14 years. HE MEETS EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. He was elected by the American people. GET OVER IT.

    Anyone born in the United States is a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN. P-E-R-I-O-D. The only people this does not apply to are the
    offspring of foreign diplomats or heads of state.

    The fact of the matter is, Barack Obama is as American as anyone who has ever served as president. No amount of stupid-ass, tin-foil hat bullshit you can dream up will change that. He WILL be the POTUS. He IS a good man, and should be given a chance to prove himself in his new job before being torn to bits.

    If the thought of an African American as president disturbs you so much that you must imagine countless fairy tales about his citizenship, then you are as far from a patriotic American as you can get. The most amazing part about all of you is the fact that you go on and on and on about the CONSTITUTION, when you don’t understand jack-shit about it. YOU HAVE NO CLUE.

    Obama won. If you can’t handle that, then fuck off.

    AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!!

    GoBama: This Complaint expresses the good faith doubts of military Plaintiffs as to whether BO is a NBC. Nowhere in the Complaint is a statement he is not. That’s why the requested relief is a Declaration by the Court as to whether he is. The text of the Complaint does not argue one way or the other; rather, it points out the inconsistencies in the record that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ concerns about his eligibility status. But one of these inconsistencies centers around where he was born, and whether HI officials confirmed he was born in HI. So, could you please send me your sources for these statements? “Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii. This fact has been confirmed by THE STATE OF HAWAII.” You also offer your legal conclusion that, “Anyone born in the United States is a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN. P-E-R-I-O-D.” Could you please provide the legal citation on which you base this legal opinion, too? Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. smellytourist says:

    Administrator–
    Several loud voices have presented the facts and the people don’t care. As I stated in my blog, we’re wasting our time with battles that won’t go anywhere.
    http://www.smellytourist.wordpress.com

    smellytourist: Yes, I heard you. And I understand how easy is thinking one lawsuit is much like another. But in this case, they are actually apples and oranges. And in court, that makes a difference. Here are the material ways this Complaint differs from the others. 1) It does not allege BO is not a NBC; it alleges Plaintiffs have a good faith belief he is not. 2) It does not provide evidence BO is not a NBC; it provides examples of conflicting data leading to Plaintiffs’ good faith belief. 3) It is only a well-pleaded Complaint and not a Complaint-Cum-Legal-Memorandum in support of a Complaint; the Legal Memorandum follows, once the Complaint is filed. The well-pleaded Complaint gives Defendant notice that Plaintiffs seek a Declaratory Judgment from the Court based on the fact they face imminent liability (as Defendants) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Most of the other cases filed were based on Mandamus, that is, the cause of action that allows citizens to ask the Court to order government officials to carry out a ministerial duty of the job. But as I have stated in this Complaint, no provision of any state or federal law explicitly requires any state actor to vet the candidate for POTUS for Constitutional eligibility for the job. These cases tried to impute such a duty; but the courts – judicial branch – will not tell government officials – executive or legislative branch – what to do, absent some clear cut authority. So, in this Complaint, Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to tell anyone to do anything. It merely asks for a legal Declaration. What Defendant could object to that?) ADMINISTRATOR

  19. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “None of this means, Annenberg Political FactCheck is independent; or that the COLB BO posted on his web site is legitimate; or that BO was born in HI.”

    I imagine that any court would resent someone citing as a fact something that is not a fact. For example, not you but other right-wing commentators cite as a fact that the grandmother said that Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, if you listen to the tape, she says that he was born in Hawaii, right after the question: “Where was he born.”

    Or, citing partial facts. For example. Not only FactCheck but also PoliFact.Com authenticated the COLB.

    Then, there is this: “Unlike a regular Certificate of Live Birth, which is filled with several boxes containing information like baby’s height and weight; the name of the hospital in which he was born; and the signature of the doctor attending the delivery, this Certification contains little more information excerpted from the original than the names of Defendant’s father and mother and that he was born in 1961 on the Island of Oahu.”

    You have cited a partial fact. A complete fact would say “he did not post his Certificate of Live Birth but only a Certification of Live Birth because Hawaii only issues Certifications of Live Birth to people who request copies of their birth certificates. So, unless he had retained and not mislaid the original certificate, all that he could post was what the State of Hawaii had sent him.’

    And you could add, “and there are a lot of states like Hawaii that also only issue summaries of the birth document.”

    You could then add, that Obama might be able to get the original of his birth certificate IF HE SUED THE STATE OF HAWAII TO GET IT. But the response would be: “Why should he. The original is the same as the COLB where the location of birth is concerned because Hawaii law does not allow the COLB to lie about the place of birth.”

    Moreover, citing something as a fact when it is an opinion would also make courts irritated. For example, you write: “But being born with dual U.S./Britain citizenship means he is not a natural born citizen.”

    But that is an opinion. I have quoted Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as saying: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”

    Also, here is an excellent site: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/

    which discusses the common law treatment of citizens born in a country and concludes that “natural born” and “a citizen at birth” are synonyms.

    Re: “The summary reflects the views of the plaintiffs.” Are you saying that they are not your views?

    What are your views? And on what facts are they based?

    smrstrauss: Again, I admire the amount of work you put into your comments. If you review the Complaint, you will see that, opinions are in the Opening Statement; facts are in the FACTS. What are my views are immaterial for the purpose of drafting this Complaint. Even before I perfected the drafting, several prospective military Plaintiffs had already signed releases agreeing to the underlying legal theory expressed therein. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. Greg says:

    This case would lack standing as it is just as attenuated a harm as that presented by the random voter. It asks the court to render a purely advisory opinion on an issue that is not ripe. Basically, look at “Constitutional Law” by Erwin Chemerinsky, pages 53-148 for the various reasons why this case is also dead on arrival.

    Maybe if the alleged military plaintiffs waited until they were actually charged with violating the UCMJ (for following or, more likely, not following an order from the Commander in Chief) they would have standing, otherwise, they are simply the definition of an attenuated and unripe case.

    Greg: Heartwarming that people like you put so much thought into this process. Your conclusions as to Plaintiff standing are inapposite to the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. While one consideration of standing relates to Plaintiff’s harm, this harm need not have already been suffered but may be imminent. The Plaintiff with standing in a well-pleaded Complaint for Declaratory Judgment is the prospective Defendant in a future case. Besides, as stated in this Complaint, once these military Plaintiffs are recalled into service under a CIC Obama, they lose some the rights they now enjoy as ‘civilians’ to question authority without automatically facing the penalties this suit seeks to preempt. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Hawaiian Revised Statutes §338-17.8 provided that the director of health may issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate for a child born outside of the country as long as the child’s parents declared the State of Hawaii was their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of the child.”

    Hawaiian Revised Statutes §338-17.8 does not allow the State of Hawaii to lie about the place of birth. It allows a Hawaii birth document to be issued, but that document must state the actual place of birth. In other words, it is possible to get a Hawaii birth document that says “born in Indonesia.”

    And, in fact, Obama’ sister, who was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, has a Hawaii birth document, a certification of live birth, and it says after place of birth: Jakarta, Indonesia.

    In contrast, Obama’s certification of live birth says that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Obviously, the fact that proves Obama’s place of birth is not having a Hawaii official certification of live birth. It is having a Hawaii official certification of live birth that states that he was born in Hawaii.

    This is confirmed by one of the documents you site. Remember, where you say:

    “The Associated Press released a copy of his elementary school registration. This document records his name is Barry Soetoro – he wrote he was called Barry as a child – and it lists his nationality is Indonesian.”

    BUT the document that you site (see http://xarasbir.blogspot.com/2009/01/who-is-barack-obama.html) says that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    So, we have the State of Hawaii issuing a public document saying that he was born in Hawaii, and we have the parents, when in Indonesia, filing an application that also says that he was born in Hawaii. They have no reason to lie in this document. Indeed, if they were to lie and say that he was born in Indonesia, it would be easier to show their claim that he was an Indonesian citizen. Or, they could have listed Kenya. It would not have mattered as far as the Indonesian school was concerned, but it would have been a lie.

    The document that shows the parents claiming that Obama had become an Indonesian citizen may or may not be true as far as Indonesian law is concerned. But it is not true as far as US law is concerned. So long as he was a US citizen, which he was, he could not lose his citizenship when he was a child due to the actions of his parents. There have been several Supreme Court cases on this, and all hold that a child cannot lose citizenship due to the actions of the parents. Only an adult can voluntarily relinquish citizenship.

    And a US citizen cannot lose citizenship by accident. You cite Obama traveling to Pakistan, allegedly on his Indonesia passport. IF true, that is not even illegal. A person with dual nationality is presumed by the US State Department to have the ability to travel on either of the two passports, that is what dual nationality is all about. And this Sate Department site (http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html) lists many causes of losing your US citizenship, but travel on a foreign passsport is not one of them.

    Re: “Defendant’s mother brought him back to Hawaii at age 10. If he passed through U.S. Customs and Immigration on re-entering the country, now he would be a “naturalized” but not “natural born citizen.””

    Since he never lost his US citizenship, he did not become a “naturalized citizen” and since he was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen.” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has been quoted as saying: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”

    smrstrauss: Wonderful to see another person so actively involved in researching the issues. However, let me just point out, what you are doing here is making legal arguments as to the issues of the status of BO’s citizenship and natural born citizenship. These kinds of arguments – as they relate to a legal case presented to the court – rightfully belong in the Legal Memorandum, but not in the well-pleaded Complaint. Also, let me point out that, statements in the SUMMARY reflect the views of the Plaintiffs. Statements in the FACTS are presented as facts. For example, it is a fact that BO posted on his web site the logo for Annenberg Political FactCheck.org and link to their web site. And it is a fact that BO was hired by Annenberg to run their CAC. It is also a fact that Annenberg Political FactCheck advertises they are independent and “nonpartisan.” It is a fact that Annenberg Political FactCheck said on their web site, they saw BO’s COLB at his Chicago office; and further, they verified it is real. They also wrote HI officials said BO was born in HI. And it is a fact that several members of Congress alleged the COLB BO posted on his FTS site is real; and he was born in HI, crediting statements they read on Annenberg Political FactCheck. None of this means, Annenberg Political FactCheck is independent; or that the COLB BO posted on his web site is legitimate; or that BO was born in HI. See what I am trying to say? ADMINISTRATOR

  22. jbjd, thanks for your recent reply on my site. Let me know if I can help. I did send a hard copy letter to Dr. Orley volunteering my standing. I’d appreciate some sort of feedback as to how it all works out. Thanks, again.- Noz

  23. smrstrauss says:

    This may be of help:

    FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

    8. Under the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I, the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    True but it would be better to quote the whole thing: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    You may have to discuss the strange location of the comma between “States” and “at.”

    9. Defendant was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    True but incomplete. The court will ask you to list whether he is a citizen now and whether he is over 35 and has he resided for 14 years in the USA?

    11. No provision of federal or state law requires the candidate for President to prove he is a natural born citizen.

    Have you checked all 50 states, the District and Puerto Rico?

    12. No provision of federal or state law requires government officials to verify the candidate for President is a natural born citizen.

    This may not be true in some states. Apparently some states DO require verification, but ordinary citizens may or may not have the standing to sue to force them to verify or to show whether they verified or not.

    13. Plaintiffs have been unable to confirm that any government official verified Defendant is a natural born citizen.

    Not true. The officials in Hawaii, when they issued a COLB that said “born in Hawaii” verified that Obama is a natural born citizen. If you mean “natural born” in the constitutional context, then you have to say here whether you are referring to the born-in-the-USA definition, or another definition such as two parents who are citizens PLUS born in the USA.

    17. Defendant’s mother married Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.) in February, 1961.

    Can you prove this?

    18. Mr. Obama, Sr. was a national of Kenya, a colony of Great Britain.

    NO, at the time he was a British subject.

    20. Defendant was born in August, 1961.
    Yes ACCORDING TO THE COLB.

    22. In their divorce papers, his father acknowledged paternity of Defendant.

    Are you sure?

    23. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Defendant became a British citizen at birth.

    The word is “subject.”
    Also incomplete. The law was that he became a British subject as well as a US citizen, dual nationality, and the British subject transferred to Kenya, becoming a Kenyan citizen in X year, but under the British Nationality Act, that citizenship expired in X year.

    25. On that site, he posted these facts: his biological father was a Kenyan national; in 1961, Kenya was a colony of the British Empire; and under British law, he inherited British citizenship.

    On that site, he posted these statements. You do not accept that they are facts. Moreover, Obama believes that his legal father is really his biological father, but no one really knows his own biological father, unless DNA tests were done.

    26. Defendant explained this meant he was born with dual U.S./Kenya citizenship.

    Someone on the site said that, can you prove that it was Obama?

    30. He wrote his mother gave birth to his sister, Maya Soetoro.
    Yes (but what has this got to do with anything?)

    32. He writes as a child, he was known as Barry.
    Yes, but what has this got to due with anything.

    34. In August 2008, Associated Press reporter Tatan Fyuflana posted an image of a registration form for a student named Barry Soetoro at the Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia.

    INCOMPLETE. SHOULD READ: “In August 2008, Associated Press reporter Tatan Fyuflana posted an image of a registration form for a student named Barry Soetoro at the Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. The form listed Obama’s place of birth as Honolulu.”

    36. On the form, the Nationality of Barry Soetoro was listed as Indonesian.
    Yes. He could have dual nationality.

    38. Indonesian law at that time disallowed dual citizenship.
    Yes. But Indonesian law does not affect US law.

    39. U.S. law on dual citizenship deferred to the law of the foreign sovereign.
    NO! WRONG. COMPLETELY WRONG. NOT A FACT. IF YOU ARE CITING A CASE, BEST TO PROVE IT. US LAW DOES NOT DEFER TO ANYONE!

    40. Under Hawaiian law, an adoption by a foreigner of a minor whose birth is registered in Hawaii resulted in the issuance of a new Certification of Live Birth issued in the name of the child’s adoptive father.
    Only if it is a legal adoption under US law and that fact has been brought to the attention of the authorities in Hawaii. In other words you have to go into detail what “adoption” means.

    45. Defendant announced at a fundraiser in San Francisco in April 2008 that while in college, he left the United States for a visit to Pakistan.

    Not a fact unless you can cite a document. No court would accept this as a fact.

    46. Asked about this disclosure of that Pakistan trip by ABC News, Defendant’s campaign confirmed he spent 3 weeks in Pakistan in 1981.

    His campaign did, this is not the same thing as he doing it. In other words, if you want to prove this thing, the fact that some people from the campaign said it cannot prove anything in court.

    47. When he returned from his Pakistan trip, Defendant presented his passport to re-enter the United States.
    Not correct. When he returned from his Pakistan trip, Defendant presented A PASSPORT (one of his passports) to re-enter the United States. Most likely it was his US passport.

    49. In 2005, Defendant won election to the U.S. Senate.
    Yes, A SPECIAL ELECTION.

    51. While in Kenya, he campaigned alongside fellow Luo, Raila Odinga, running for the Office of President of Kenya.

    This could be read to mean that he campaigned for the office of president of Kenya. It is also hard to show that he “campaigned.” What you need to do is show that he appeared on the same stage as Odinga and gave speeches in support of Odinga.

    54. Senator Hillary Clinton won the majority of popular votes cast in the Democratic Presidential Primary
    There is no national political primary. What you mean is the majority of all the votes cast in the total of state (and Puerto Rico???) primaries. Then you should say whether you are counting caucuses.

    55. Primary votes cast for Senator Clinton resulted in more pledged delegates for her than for Defendant.
    Yes, but you do not mention caucuses.

    57. In August 2008, Ms. Pelosi signed an Official Certification of Nomination distributed to the chief elections officials in 49 states and the District of Columbia which read, “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively: For President of the United States, Barack Obama…”\

    WHY not Puerto Rico?

    59. Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113 requires that the political party of a candidate must provide a statement that the candidate is legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the United States Constitution.

    Yes I assume. YOU now have to show whether or not the political party did this.

    60. Elections officials in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia put Defendant’s name onto the general election ballot as the Democratic candidate for President.
    And Puerto Rico

    63. Electors for Defendant won the popular vote in the general election for President on November 4, 2008.
    Yes, but incomplete. He won 365 votes in the Electoral College. If you are going to bring this to a Federal Court, better get the Electoral College vote in there. We know that some people can win the popular vote and yet not be elected president.

    64. Two days after the election, Honorable Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., told an American radio station that Defendant’s birthplace in Kenya is “already an attraction.”

    Yes, but he has denied it. He says that he did not clearly understand the question and was thinking of the family home. Give all the facts.

    65. The Ambassador assured the interviewers even without a formal government marker, the site is “already well known.”
    Which he now says he meant was the family home. Give all the facts.

    67. Members of the U.S. Congress counted and Certified the votes cast by the Electoral College on January 8, 2009.

    Yes. But you do not say who won. A court will not like you leaving this out. Obama won with 365 electoral votes.

    69. In June 2008 Defendant insisted on his “Fight the Smears” web site he can prove he is a “native citizen.”
    His campaign staff wrote this. Can you show that the Defendant did?

    72. This “Certification” identified his father is Barack Hussein Obama, whose race is listed as African; his place of birth is Hawaii; and his date of birth is August, 1961.
    Incomplete. His date of birth was of course August 4, and his place of birth is listed as Honolulu, Oahu, Honolulu County.

    73. In 1961, Hawaiian Revised Statutes §338-17.8, Certificates for children born out of State, provides that the director of health may issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate for a child born outside of the country as long as the child’s parents declared the State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of the child.

    You got a problem with the tense of the verbs. Moreover, are you SURE that 338-17.8 was in effect in 1961? I have heard that it was not. Better check.

    74. Defendant prominently displays on his “Fight the Smears” site the logo for the organization called FactCheck, linking his site to their web page.

    The campaign created the Web site, so it is Defendant’s Web site, but you cannot show that the Defendant personally displayed the item. His staff did.

    77. FactCheck was created and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation.
    Totally funded? Can you show that it gets 100% from Annenburg?

    80. As Chair of the CAC, Mr. Obama doled out tens of millions of Foundation dollars to community groups like ACORN and Bill Ayers’ Small Schools Workshops.

    Incomplete. A court will not like to see you just do this. Best to list the top ten organizations that received funds, in the order of the amount of funds, and as to “tens of millions” better have an amount such as “more than $6 million or whatever.” And, of course, any court will see that “doled out” is not an impartial word. And impartial word would be “contributed.”

    81. Test scores failed to measure any improvement as compared to students not involved with the Challenge.

    If this is a fact, cite the test scores and who compiled the results and in what year or years—it gets tough doesn’t it? And, what does this have to do with the election? A court will not want to see such irrelevant things. You know, most of us do things that turn out to be ineffective or counter-productive, what has this got to do with the election?

    85. FactCheck alleged the State of Hawaii does not offer the option of requesting a long form Birth Certificate.
    Yes. But incomplete. It alleged, and you can find out whether or not it is true yourself.

    87. Plaintiffs are unable to find any evidence that any official from Hawaii made this statement FactCheck attributed to them.

    Did you call FactCheck and ask? If not, how can you show that you did a thorough search? If you call them, and they say that they spoke to X who said the following, you can then send an e-mail to X and ask: “Did you say the following?” and if she or he says “Yes,” you got one thing, and if she or he says “No,” you got another, but so far you are not finished in the task of being able or unable to find evidence. Sorry, it is a tough job.

    90. Constituents contacted members of Congress expressing concerns whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution for the Office of President.
    Yes but incomplete. Some citizens expressed concerns, other citizens did not express concerns or wrote “how wonderful it is to have Obama as president.” A court will not like to see just one side of the story.

    smrstrauss: Wow. I cannot possibly respond to each of your points. However let me point out a couple of items about ‘construction.’ It is not the responsibility of Plaintiffs to flesh out nuance. For example, it is a “fact” they have been unable to identify any evidence that HI officials confirmed BO’s place of birth is HI. Viewing an internet posting of a document only identified by the Defendant, in the eyes of Plaintiffs, does not constitute verification from officials. On the contrary, the fact that Defendant has failed to produce any evidence of a HI birth in any of the more than 2 (two) dozen legal actions initiated thus far tends to support a conclusion that, there is no such proof. Remember, the cases that have been unsuccessful based on procedural flaws were not dismissed sua sponte. That is, Defendant submitted legal arguments to the Courts seeking such dismissals, without offering evidence that would have obviated the need for the next case to be filed. Also, yes, hard as it is to believe, no provision of any state or federal law requires any government official to confirm the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Read the memo below. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. smrstrauss says:

    Re:

    On the contrary, the fact that Defendant has failed to produce any evidence of a HI birth in any of the more than 2 (two) dozen legal actions initiated thus far tends to support a conclusion that, there is no such proof.

    I do not think so, since he won all those cases. In fact, as a factual matter, you have to distinguish between cases that were solely for producing his birth certificate–which I think is ONLY the Hawaii case, and the others that were primarily seeking to stop the election.

    In all of these case Obama himself is only a minor actor. The defendants who are most active are the State of Hawaii, in the Martin case, and the other states in the “stop the election” cases.

    In other words it is not a “fact” that Obama has failed to produce a birth certificate in all those cases. Indeed, you will have to do more research and find out exactly how many cases they asked to see his birth certificate at all.

    Going further as to the plaintiffs having been unable to confirm. I think it is possible that a court might ask: “did they try to confirm?” And if so, “how?”

    Re: Defendant submitted legal arguments to the Courts seeking such dismissals, without offering evidence that would have obviated the need for the next case to be filed.

    Of course, but that his his right–and again, he was only the third of the defendants in most cases, which were mainly the states, the federal election commission and lastly Obama. It is not even clear that Obama’s own lawyers submitted motions in any of those cases. His lawyers may just have sat there and watched as the state lawyers and representatives of the Solicitor General’s office did all the work.

    Which means more research to be done, because if you say that the Defendant submitted legal arguments, and only the States and the Solicitor General did, then you have submitted a “fact” which is not a fact.

    smrstrauss: Okay, I see that you like to take the position of the Defendant. And BO might well attack the facts in this case in the manner you have done. But this Complaint is from the Plaintiffs. They only need to allege sufficient facts to survive one of BO’s Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Also, as to your mistaken assertion that BO has thus far not directly responded to any of these Complaints, read the pleadings in the Berg case. BO and his lawyers argued, Defendant does not have to prove he is a NBC in this court because Plaintiff Mr. Berg has no right to ask since he is only an average citizen. And the judge agreed. But none of these cases has reached the issue as to whether BO is a NBC. That’s why people keep filing these cases. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “not directly responded to any of these Complaints.”

    I believe my point is that you have to show that he has directly responded to all of them, which is what you seem to be saying with the comment about “two dozen actions.”

    To be sure, he responded as you said in the Berg case. Which is his right.

    Re: “They only need to allege sufficient facts to survive one of BO’s Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.”

    And I was thinking that they wanted to win.

    Re: ‘And BO might well attack the facts in this case in the manner you have done.”

    I am looking at this from the point of view of the judge or justice, and it seems to me that if they see anything that they know to be wrong, or to be overstated, they will throw the case on the pile. So it is to your advantage to be very careful with the facts.

    smrstrauss: I completely understand that the criticisms you offer of this legal document represent the scope of your lay expertise, since you have no formal training in the law. Rest assured, in court, it’s the law that counts. The Complaint only has to be well-pleaded. The Legal Memorandum spells out how the FACTS in the Complaint fit into the laws giving the Court JURISDICTION, as stated in the Complaint, persuasively arguing the RELIEF SOUGHT should be granted by the Court. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. A few questions…
    1. So, now I have a template, what now?
    2. Do I need a lawyer to file (to properly adapt template, ensure proper filing)?
    3. Where do I file (I believe there is federal circuit court on post)?
    4. What resources are available for finding counsel and walking dumb Soldiers like myself through the process?

    That’s pretty much it. Thanks.

    Pieter: For any Plaintiffs who want to file suit, either on their own (pro se) or, through a lawyer, I will perfect all documents and forward via attachment to email so that you will have the actual Complaint for filing. (This may also serve as enticement for an attorney even just starting out to take this case.) (Information about pro se filings can be found on the web site of the district court; if I know the jurisdiction, I can provide the link. This will tell you how many copies of the Complaint you must submit, etc., and how much is the filing fee.) As soon as I receive notice the case has been filed, including the docket number, I will forward the Legal Memorandum that supports the Complaint. In other words, once Plaintiff provides identifying information – full name, service, rank, duty status, any service awards, current address – I will finalize the Complaint. Then, at the same time Plaintiffs file this Complaint with the Court Clerk, they file another document called Service of Summons, which states they have arranged to have this Complaint served on Defendant, at the address in the Complaint. (I will arrange for Service in Washington, D.C.) I want to make clear that, the underlying theory of the Complaint cannot be changed. That is, Plaintiffs are alleging a good faith belief BO may not be a NBC and that, based on this good faith belief, they face imminent liability under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. ADMINISTRATOR

  27. Gordon says:

    A further thought about Fitzgerald and other U.S. Attorneys.

    Many newly installed Presidents remove many of the U.S. Attorneys and replace them with their own appointees. Bill Clinton actually fired them all to help secure his criminal empire.

    If any, or all, of the U.S. Attorneys wanted to stay, wouldn’t you think it would be possible for them to object to their removal and make PEBO prove that he was qualified to act as presiident in order for him to possess the authority to fire them.

    Wouldn’t you think that Fitzy would be just waiting for PEBO to do such a stupid thing and jump all over him with an application to the Supremes for a declaratory judgement as to PEBO’s qualifications… or file a Quo Warranto motion with the Supremes forcing PEBO to identify himself and prove he is qualified to serve as POTUS. Wouldn’t any of those U.S. Attorneys have “Standing”?

    Can somebody help me out here?

    Gordon

    Gordon: I am heartened by a thinking electorate. Help me out here. Are you pre-supposing a U.S. Attorney currently possesses evidence tending to prove BO is not a NBC? ADMINISTRATOR

  28. Gordon says:

    Admin;

    I would suspect that a, or even some, U.S. Attorneys would or could, have such documentary support.

    But, even without such evidence, wouldn’t a sitting U.S. Attorney have “standing” to question whether any request for his/her resignation either directly from PEBO, or from a PEBO appointee would have come from a person qualified to make such a demand/request.

    PEBO’s own website, as well as his (purported) books and other sources show clearly that he is not qualified to “serve” as President. He has not denied that his father was a Kenyan/Brit or that he was adopted by an Indonesian Muslim and entered into an Indonesian school as Barry Soetero. The truth is, he hasn’t even shown enough documentation to know what his legal name actually is….. or whether he is a U.S. citizen of any kind. This is all public knowledge and unrefuted by PEBO….some of it even promulgated by PEBO himself. This begs the question as to whether a public official of any kind should obey any order or instruction from PEBO to perform any official act without exposing themselves to civil or even criminal penalties.

    I am looking for a legal rationale or legal “standing” through which public officials could challenge PEBO that would finally force the courts to deal with this important issue on the merits rather than passing the buck through their ever-increasing involutional judicial cowardice.

    Gordon

    Gordon: We all are. And, this is a case of first impression. Because BO is not eligible to be POTUS and so, even impeachment (by Congress) is off the table. I will give you an example of how a government employee could obtain standing to determine whether BO is a NBC. (Absent proof, I continue to frame the issue of BO’s Constitutional eligibility as unknown. Just because he says his father was Kenyan does not mean, this is so. And, even considering probate laws at that time conferred legal paternity on the husband – this was pre-DNA testing – the only ‘evidence’ we have that such a marriage took place between BO’s mother and BO, Sr. is the copy of the divorce papers posted on the web.) An employee against whom an adverse employment decision has been made could contest that decision in a civil administration hearing (and then to court) claiming the President had no authority to made that decision, asking the court to subpoena the records necessary to rule on the issue. However, the ‘best’ way to gain standing would be to commit a criminal act, for example, refuse to leave the office and be arrested for criminal trespassing. As a Defendant in a criminal case, she is then entitled to argue an affirmative defense that she could not be trespassing based on a firing from a man not legally entitled to issue such firing. She could request an Order of Production for all of the records that would tend to establish the truth of her assertion; and no judge would deny such an order, in a criminal case. Otherwise, any government employee attached to the military could have standing, like it says in this Complaint. (I cannot characterize the court’s refusal to grant the Plaintiffs’ requested relief as “passing the buck.” Each of these suits was procedurally infirm. I will reserve judgment for a case in which Plaintiffs should prevail; but do not. So far, I have not reviewed that case.) ADMINISTRATOR

    01.21.11: I am reviewing old comments looking for something and found this wrong statement as to Obama’s lawful status as President assuming he is not a NBC. I subsequently realized, of course, he is the lawful President, as 1) no law requires Electors to elect only a President Constitutionally eligible for the job; and 2) Electors elected him, Congress Certified their vote, and the CJ of the SCOTUS swore him in, all prescribed by the Constitution, which also provides Impeachment as the way to remove him from office.

  29. We No Longer have a Congress to Write To

    This is my response to any one who ever asks me to write another letter the existing Congress, Senate or Supreme Court. NOT UNTIL EVERY ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIAL IN THIS CURRENT SLATE IS REMOVED WILL I WASTE MY INTEGRITY WRITING TO ANY OF THEM. THEY ARE TRAITORS—EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM. I WILL IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ACKNOWLEDGE OR VALIDATE ANY ONE OF THEM AS MY REPRESENTIVES IN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AS THE US CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM FAILED TO KEEP THEIR OATH TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA!

    (Though I wrote this to one very well intentioned lady, we will all find ourselves forgetting American is no more.)

    You are in as much of a fog of confusion as all of us. On one hand you readily acknolwedge that our Congress and Senate has failed us by refusing to hear the calls and letters we sent them regarding Obama’s “natural born citizen” status. On the other hand you are asking us to write to our Congress regarding a new bill to be voted upon. It is apparent reality hasn’t hit us yet.

    If Congress failed America on the most important issue in American history–the installation of a Usurper as President,– what on earth makes you think it is still OUR CONGRESS? We no longer have a Congress, Senate, or Supreme Court that gives a rats tail about us. I will never again write to a dead government.

    The only issue left is terminating all our elected officials before their terms expire. WE must concentrate on finding every way to publicly expose them for the treason they committed against America and terminate them for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and treason. These elected officials are not politicians in office. They are criminals! They should be behind bars. We should be doing every thing in our power to indict all of them. We must constantly remind the public of Congress, Sennate and The Supreme Court’s betrayal of America! There no longer is a Congress that exists for the people!

    Usa Patriots Shout

    Therese: I am continuously moved by the political activism this campaign season has engendered. I agree with almost every sentiment you expressed about our members of Congress except this. We are still paying them to work for us; and they are not doing their jobs. Until we can fire them, we need to expend the energy to try to get them to do what we are paying them to do. In fact, we are paying them twice! That is, we pay their salaries; and we give them kickbacks, in the form of campaign donations from the same crooks who looted their companies and got our elected officials to bail them out with our money! ADMINISTRATOR

  30. njresident says:

    JBJD,
    Have you seen this at http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=785 ?

    ‘Urgent – ATTORNEY NEEDED IMMEDIATELY, PRO BONO, to file a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
    Posted on January 17th, 2009 by David Crockett
    Ms. Cris Ericson in a comment on this site published the following request for assistance. Please spread this message as wide as any way possible.

    ATTORNEY NEEDED IMMEDIATELY, PRO BONO, to file a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST the
    UNITED STATES CONGRESS for FRAUD IN A FIDUCIARY CAPACITY AGAINST TAXPAYERS for FAILURE to to do their DUTY to FIRST SUBPOENA BARACK OBAMA’S ORIGINAL LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE BEFORE CERTIFYING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES, and for not doing their duty at all to subpoena his original long form birth certificate, which is fraud in a fiduciary capacity against taxpayers who had a reasonable expectation and a CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT to have material facts to be certain that the Electoral College Vote is not a product of breach of informed consent and a fraudulent conveyance.

    LEGAL STANDING FOR TAXPAYERS AND REGISTERED VOTERS:

    28 USCS Section 1491 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
    FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE: RULE 803 (8),(11),(12),(13),(16),(19),(23)Public Records for Birth Certificates.

    FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: Rule 12; Rule 19 JOIN ALL PLAINTIFFS IN ALL ACTIONS CURRENTLY IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, INCLUDING ACTIONS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT because it saves all Courts time and money to JOIN all plaintiffs into one action, and because a Class Action Lawsuit, once file, preempts and trumps all other cases where plaintiffs seek Barack Obama’s original long form birth certificate.

    Rule 23 CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT puts an end to all other lawsuits seeking the same legal remedy.’

    I seem to remember you saying that you want to file suit against congress but need an attorney to write up the case and you will do the legwork?
    njresident

    njresident: I am so glad I finally found you; heard you had been looking for me. No; I only wanted the record of constituent contacts because I ‘knew’ members of Congress were basing their failure to protect the electorate from this poseur on a lame set of ‘facts.’ And I wanted to use their words to support the claims in this Complaint that Plaintiffs have a good faith belief BO is not a NBC. As for another legal case… I do not perform the ‘legwork.’ I am the idea person and the drafter. (For example, I was the first person to propose using military Plaintiffs, as well as the first person who shifted the burden of establishing whether BO is a NBC to the Courts.)ADMINISTRATOR

  31. njresident says:

    Regarding the Template,
    would it be appropriate to refer to the resolution 511 sponsored by Obama himself, and it was resolved that a child born to 2 US citizens parents is a nbc? This shows that Obama has contradicted himself: on one hand he admits that a nbc is one born to 2 US citizen parents, on the other hand he claims himself as a nbc though he has a non-US citizen father. This certainly creates doubt on plaintiff’s mind!

  32. Gordon says:

    Admin;
    Thank you. Your response to my post was helpful. I agree with you as to the procedural problems with previous cases, although the Supremes may have arranged to delay some of the hearings until some of the claimed issues may have ripened.

    I am also thinking that Vice President Cheney may have committed a procedural error (intentionally?… as Cheney is a wily old fox) in the joint session of Congress by not availing the Congress of the opportunity to “object” to the certification of the votes presented by the Electoral College. I am wondering if that may have opened the door to a “stay” of the certification of the votes because of the procedural error/ommission.

    Of course, it may also have been done to as a means to afford “cover” for the Congress for not having the courage to deal with this issue as they should have, and/or as “cover” for serious charges of participating in a conspiracy to install a ursurper as POTUS.

    I appreciate your blog. You exhibit an impressive expertise in legal details, procedures, and rationale.

    Gordon

    Gordon: Thank you. But VP Cheney’s failure to follow procedural protocol to the letter does not absolve these other Senators from following the law. How quickly do you suppose they would have objected if a Senate rule with lessor import had been overlooked? No; whatever motive one would ascribe to the conduct of these public servants, one way or the other, they failed to carry out both the spirit and the letter of their jobs as representatives of the people. ADMINISTRATOR

  33. Gordon says:

    JB;

    This is Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
    Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the
    Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
    domestic Violence.”

    Is there an attorney or someone out there that can tell me if this Article is guaranteeing to the states that the federal government will be maintained as a republican form of government,…. or is it guaranteeing that the States shall maintain a republican form of government.

    It seems to me that the States are being guaranteed by the federal entity that the federal entity shall maintain a republican form of government…..If that is so, why do virtually ALL of our publice officials constantly prattle ignorantly or treasonously about our “democracy”?

    Is this just another social engineering ploy by the anti-constitutionalists in government, both elected and unelected, to reduce us to mob rule (read democracy)?

    After all, Hitler knew that a lie told long enough and often enough will become “the truth”…….Sort of like the “Wall of Separation” between church and state.

    Gordon

    Gordon: Thank you for reading this book; it is the foundation of our “Constitutional” Republic. Here is a good explanation of that section of the Constitution. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/18.html#1 ADMINISTRATION

  34. Roberta says:

    This post is transferred here from Orly’s blog, at your suggestion:

    Hey jbjd:

    I know you’re an attorney: I’m an ex-attorney too, but not terribly familiar with Constitutional law. I understand what you’re saying about the complication of having a document cosigned by Biden. What puzzles me is why Joe Biden or ANY of the cabinet can be considered legitimate when they were all chosen by a person who wasn’t even eligible to have his name on the ballot.

    I’m at a loss to understand why an unqualified President’s ineligibility doesn’t extend all the way back to the ballot as though it had never happened. (Because it shouldn’t have.) As you know, people don’t get to vote for a Vice President, who in this case was the choice of an ineligible candidate. So why isn’t the entire Obama/Biden ticket void ab initio?

    Since there should never have been a ballot bearing Obama’s name, I honestly feel that ANY impact his inclusion had in the election must be voided, including all of his extremely questionable choices for cabinet members.

    Obviously under the 20th Amendment we’d have to tolerate Biden as Acting President until we have a qualified President. But then, wouldn’t the newly elected, Constitutionally qualified President then have the right and the duty to chose his/her own Vice President and cabinet members?

    And do We the People get the opportunity to elect the new President, or do we have to have one foisted upon us by this heavily lopsided Congress?

    Roberta: Thank you for bringing your question to this site, where other interested citizens can read this response. While the Party (electors for the) candidates for President and Vice-President appear on the general election ballots in the states as a team, the voting at the EC is separate. That is, the VP with the most EC votes, wins. And, theoretically, the EC could have refused to vote for BO having confirmed he is not a NBC. But they never bothered to confirm he is not a NBC. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html ADMINISTRATOR

  35. Stormyweather says:

    Administrator:

    Is there anything legally that can be done with regards to Cheney NOT asking for objections? What about Congress? Also, can a Class Action suit be filed against the DNC and Pelosi specifically since she signed the certifications that Obama was qualified?

    Stormyweather: No; some people only assume VP Cheney failed to ascertain whether Congress had any objections to the Certification of the EC vote because they anticipated an oral call for such objections. But VP Cheney presumptively ascertained there were no such objections through other means. As for pursuing other legal remedies… I am in the process of perfecting another legal Complaint, which can be filed by lay people (as opposed to the military Complaint). ADMINISTRATOR

  36. Stormyweather says:

    Administrator:

    Once you have it together please email me as I will be more than willing to file as pro se.

    Stormyweather: Great. Keep watching the blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  37. HistorianDude says:

    So… I’m still (after five months) looking for somebody to actually provide evidence that would indicate the truth behind the “factual” allegation that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. Maybe this blog will do what none of the others have been able to; actually answer the question:

    What evidence is there that Obama was not born in Hawaii?

    HistorianDude: I have absolutely no idea where BO was born. This Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs have a good faith belief BO is not a NBC. To establish this good faith belief, I avoid stating as “FACTS” anything that is not a fact. Instead, I rely in large part on BO’s representations of ‘facts.’ For example, the Complaint states that BO set up a web site entitled “Fight the Smears” for the stated purpose of responding to “rumors” about his citizenship. He posted on that site a document entitled “Certification of Live Birth” but wrote this was actually his “Official Birth Certificate.” I stated that he alleged this copy proved he is a “native citizen.” I stated that he previously swore he was a “natural born citizen”; and that under HI law at the time he was born, the foreign birth of a baby could be registered in HI. By the way, instead of asking people to prove a negative, perhaps you could present them with your evidence BO was born in HI; and see whether they can contest your allegations? ADMINISTRATOR

  38. HistorianDude says:

    Well… you see, that is very close to my point. Your statements acknowledge several examples of evidence that support his Hawaiian birth. They include (but are not limited to) statements and oaths to that affect, and at least one officially State Certified document to that effect, his COLB. No;I never offer up this document as proof of anything except that BO posted this on his web site. I have no idea what this is; it’s a copy posted on the internet! You did not also point out that another document you reference in your template, the Indonesian School Record, also asserts a Hawaiian birth. No; it asserts his nationality is Indonesian.

    So… what I’m looking for is any evidence of comparable reliability that contradicts it. I am not asking anybody to prove a negative at all. I am asking them to provide positive evidence of a non-Hawaiian birth. Examples would be… oh… a Kenyan birth certificate. I am confused; if a Kenyan birth certificate would evidence BO was not born in HI; then why wouldn’t a HI birth certificate evidence he was not born in Kenya? Where is the HI birth certificate? Or a genuine affidavit from someone with 1st hand testimony of such a birth. Or a genuine affidavit from someone with 1st hand testimony of such a birth.

    After all… this is not an issue entirely without evidence. But all of the actual evidence appears so firmly in Obama’s favor that it is difficult to credit any claims of “good faith belief BO is not an NBC.”

    As an aside… you are in error regarding the claim that “under HI law at the time he was born, the foreign birth of a baby could be registered in HI.” For your convenience, I actually cite this law. But I cannot look it up for you. The laws cited to make that assertion were passed long after his birth.

    So… can I try again?

    What evidence is there that Obama was not born in Hawaii? What evidence is there that, he was?

  39. Gordon says:

    jb;
    I have another query as to “standing”.

    Is it possible that wives or husbands of military personnel would have standing to file a complaint for Declaratory Relief, or something similar. They surely have an interest in whether their husband or wife could be given an illegal order and be ultimately held accountable for following an illegal order in killing or maiming someone during the prosecution of that illegal order….. per the rules of military and official conduct emanating from the Nuremburg Trials? Couldn’t our troops be subjected to prosecution in the International courts by prosecuting military actions/orders issued by an illegal President/C in C?

    I ask this because I have observed in many instances that a concerned or outraged loved-one will many times be more protective of an individual than the at-risk individual themselves, who may be concerned or confused as to what his/her commanders and compatriots may feel about him/her if they were to initiate such actions on their own.

    If this “standing” could be held effective, it could open up the path to many more lawsuits than simply exhorting military personnel themselves to risk alienating members of his/her own military unit. I am ex-military and have considered how I would harbor concerns as to how my squadron leader and commander would have reacted if I had instituted such an action on my own. If a Complaint were to be filed by a loved-one, it would provide a little cover for a person on active-duty.

    Gordon

    Gordon: It has always been my intention to provide cover for our military, appreciating the precarious nature of their position as both soldiers and citizens, with all of the rights and responsibilities each role entails. In November, when I first wrote the memo proposing military Plaintiffs could survive any attack on standing, I proposed as the underlying cause of action, a civil rights complaint. (Read the November memo, below, FIND OUT WHETHER BO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN…) The basic idea is the same as this current military Complaint. That is, if military personnel act on a good faith belief BO is a NBC, and then it is revealed, he is not; these soldiers face potential liability for doing their jobs, thus depriving them of life and liberty without due process. And families could sue on such a civil rights claim, too. But this would be much more complicated than the current iteration of an action using a military Plaintiff, which is far superior in large part because of its simplicity. As for protecting the military…I was told by two such eligible Plaintiffs that the wording in this Complaint ‘lets them off the hook,’ in that it does not anticipate for certain what conduct will transpire in the future. And this was the point. Everything is cast in terms of the imminent potential liability. In fact, as I stated in my memo, I envisioned Plaintiffs yet to be deployed, that is, on inactive duty status, to provide added cover. (I will be writing more on this later.) ADMINISTRATOR

  40. Gordon says:

    To: Historian Dude;

    You are too invested in the Birth Certificate issue.

    By his own public admissions in several places and publication, the usurper states, in his own writings, that his father was a Kenyan/non-U.S. Citizen. ergo, that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the Unites States. This thing speaks for itself.

    There is much afoot here that isn’t being made public. Our law enforcement and judicial agencies have to know what is going on here. They have been presented with hundreds of thousands of letters, complaints, and lawsuits, many of which have included everything that is needed to institute investigations. You can also be sure that the intelligence agencies of all advanced countries in the world also know that a usurper is sitting in the White House and that any agreement or treaty he may sign would be a nullity, ab initio.

    The problem is political. Internecene civil unrest could erupt if the ursurper is removed too quickly, without allowing the cultic atmosphere that propelled him into the office he now purports to occupy to abate somewhat. The Judiciary must be sure all their ducks are in a row and the process is procedurally perfect. The evidence must be convincing and unequivocal. Public pressure, public publication of evidence, and legal actions must build to an undeniable crescendo, and literally force the judiciary to act to control the outrage that will come from public exposure of the usurper.

    We must remember that there will be many ramification from this action. The Democrat party may cease to exist as a political entity after this treasonous and criminal debacle. Many politicians of both parties may suffer recall or otherwise be removed from office. Criminal charges may be filed against hundreds of people involved in this great hoax, including State officials who should have exercised an affirmative duty to decertify this usurper from the State ballots. A federal Grand Jury may be convened that would have far reaching authority to remove people who were even remotely involved in this hoax from maintaining any vestige of official authority.

    One good thing which may ultimately result from this dangerous fiasco, is that citizens may institute a permanent, constitutionally authorized, citizens Grand Jury, a constitutionally authorized “4th branch of the government”, which has lain dormant much too long, as a powerful watchdog over the other 3 branches of government, to prevent them from corrupting themselve beyond redemption again.

    Gordon

  41. Gordon says:

    jb;
    Can you tell us if any active-duty folks have or are preparing to file the Declarations.

    I, for one, would be greatly encouraged if I know that there were Complaints being prepared or have already been filed in an attempt to extricated the judiciary from their self-imposed strait-jacket of “standing”, by which they have with, perceived, cowardice aforethought, immobilized themselves and rendered themselves impotent to deal with this crisis, even while they are awash in citizen concern and publically available evidence that there is indeed a real problem here.

    Gordon

  42. HistorianDude says:

    The Achilles Heel of any “standing” for members of the military is essentially the same as that of any taxpayer regarding how taxes are used. The US Supreme Court has consistently found that the conduct of the federal government is too far removed from individual taxpayer returns for any injury to the taxpayer to be traced to the use of tax revenues. Likewise, the individual soldier is too far removed from any order by the president for them to consider their orders illegitimate regardless of their personal beliefs regarding Obama’s NBC status.

    There is (you might recall) a chain of command which is valid regardless of any break in the chain. A platoon leader’s orders to his or her platoon are legitimate and legal regardless of whether or not any superior officer is legitimate or even living. The combat necessity of such a standard is rather obvious. As such… only an individual receiving a direct order from the President can conceivable object to the order on grounds of a good faith belief that the President may be illegitimate. Unless you manage to get a member of the Joint Chiefs as a plaintiff, “standing” by the military is a pipe dream.

    HistorianDude: I posted this comment from you hoping anyone else reading will realize, I will post comments notwithstanding they have no basis in fact or reality. As to addressing the objections you raise in your comments, well, if these have any merit then, I would anticipate, Mr. Obama’s attorneys would raise such objections, as they have in the past. But this would be the first case in which he is saying to military personnel merely asking whether he is a NBC, ‘I don’t have to answer you, because you have no standing.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  43. HistorianDude says:

    To Gordon:

    I am “invested” in the BC issue because it is the only potentially genuine issue at play. The “Donofrio” definition of “natural born citizen” has been rejected by the US Supreme court as recently as last month in a denial based on merit rather than standing. But its history of rejection in the courts goes back more than a century and a half to the case of Lynch v. Clarke, (3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 [1844]) where it was explicitly observed that a person born on US soil whose parents were not citizens was absolutely eligible to be president.

    To the Administrator:

    Wishful thinking does not replace the UCMJ. As you are certainly aware, the only reason Obama’s lawyers have not “rasied such objections” is because they have not had to. No case based on military standing has even been heard. As a West Point Graduate, I claim some expertise in the area of both UCMJ and the legal status of the chain of command. If you actually had a substantive rebuttal to my post, I seem to have missed it.

    PS: When are you going to take my other post (from yesterday) off moderation hold? Or is your willingness to post dissenting comments not really all that serious?

    HistorianDude: Having an open forum here means, comments that contain faulty logic; or veer off-topic; or appear confrontational will be submitted. At some point, I had to weigh the cost of posting such flawed commentary vs. the benefit of educating the public. And, I added to the cost calculation, my time and energy in pointing out those flaws. This is why I held back one of your lengthy critiques in moderation. Too much misinformation requiring too much rebuttal. As for this latest comment, let me assure you, the next time you address this post with comments like those contained in your “PS” above, I will not post. Because what you offer to readers of this blog is not reasoned dissent but disrespect and condescension. And I am too busy trying to help patriotic Americans expose BO is not a NBC to spend the time deconstructing another one of your caustic tomes. ADMINISTRATOR

  44. Gordon says:

    HistorianDude;
    Your above cite is irrelevant and erroneous. I reject it as sadly Obamamaniacal and disinformational. FYI the Donofrio case has not been dismissed, it is still pending.

    This usurper is likely an illegal alien. You should be more concerned about the terrible implications of that than engaging in a boastful rant.

    Many, many thousands of us are trying to find a way to keep our country from sinking into a mobocracy, short of engaging in violence. You should try to be more helpful and get you ego under control.

    If you have something useful and practical to contribute, share it with us and retire your arrogance and condesencion.

    Gordon

  45. 08hayabusa says:

    Thanks JB

    If not for the Patriots like yourself who are talented in the law and have the fortitude to stand up for it, the rest of us would just have to suffer the benevolent dictator.

    I just wish to say thanks once again for your effort.

    Sincerely

    Jim

    Jim: Psychic benefits are nice. Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR

  46. 08hayabusa says:

    Why do you folks even waste your time with HistorianDude. He’s obviously one of those brainwash Obamabots.

    That’s like trying to talk to one of those fellows who thinks he going to get 70 virgins, to not fly the airplane into the building.

  47. jtx says:

    To: ADMINISTRATOR:

    Following are some links that may be helpful background/backup data in arguing:

    1) vs COLB on the 4 pro-Obama websites (a forensic worthy definitive opinion); and

    2) The weakness of the so-called HI BC (period) since even Sun Yat Sen obtained one in 1904 saying he was born in HI in 1970 when he was really born in China in 1866 per most authorities.

    1) http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/

    2) http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/Home/obama-short-form-birth-certificate

    jtx: I understand the reason that you offered this assistance but, let me repeat, in this military Complaint, I am not trying to establish whether BO is a NBC. I am trying to establish that Plaintiffs have a good faith belief he may not be, based on FACTS like, he said his father was Kenyan. See, without documentation, we have no idea whether his father was Kenyan; we aren’t even sure his ‘father’ married his mother, which would at least give us some guidance of paternity under probate laws. See what I mean? ADMINISTRATOR

  48. simplemindedme says:

    Surely, there has to be a corporation or business that has suffered serious “harm” by the election of Obama. For example, what if a business had a contract to do a certain job, but the contract came with the caveat that it would be null and void upon the election of Obama.

    simplemindedme: Great idea for a tort claim! I am working on drafting a Complaint against Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. ADMINISTRATOR

  49. jtx says:

    TYVM for the response; no need for you to do another but I offered the 2 links to help show (if needed) that the 4 COLB sites were ALL counterfeit (q.v., the link) should that contribute to the Plantiffs’ good faith belief of possible ineligibility.

    Since allies of the Defense were presenting birth documents (not otherwise corrected by the Defense) that were clearly (by Dr. Polariks analysis) counterfeit it might tend to make the Plantiffs look at the NBC issue with an even greater degree of uncertainty.

    The “Sun Yat Sen link” was merely to show that HI has apparently been lax on this general issue for some time, perhaps (or not) contributing to Plantiffs’ indecision on the matter.

  50. Mick says:

    JB,
    This “HistorianDude” guy is presenting a flawed Common Law application (in Lynch v. Clarke 1844) of Natural Born Citizenship as presented by a 1st Circuit Court of N.Y judge, not a SCOTUS decision. Later SCOTUS decisions did not support it. US v. Ark held that Wong was merely a “citizen”, not NBC. In Perkins v. Elg (1939) Scotus held that Elg, being born of naturalized citizen parents, was a “Ntural Born citizen”, and that Steinkauler, a “Native Born Citizen”, born of naturalized citizen parents (not “native citizen”, as BO calls himself), could be “elected POTUS someday”. In the same case Bohn, born in the US of Alien parents, is deemed merely American Citizen. Elg was a SCOTUS case almost 100 years after the 1st Circuit Court of NY case of Lynch v. Clarke, and is clearly the superceding decision, . NBC must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the US not merely within the hurisdiction.
    Anyway, great work!! I think that you probably have more staying power in this quest, whereas Donofrio did not have the stomach for it. You are clearly separating your idea from Taitz’s, and Leo was afraid to be grouped with her flawed theory. Too many cooks are spoiling the broth!

    Mick: Good for you for ‘doing the work.’ Another thing most lay people miss is this. When a case only need reach a particular issue, say, whether someone is a citizen for purposes of being allowed to re-enter the country, an expanded discussion by the Justices is usually dicta, with no precedential effect. As for whether my military Complaint would accomplish what several people state is the goal, which is, to produce a Court ruling that BO is not a NBC… In a way, it already has. Berg used a military Plaintiff, although not one I envisioned; and a different legal cause of action. But in his responsive Motion to Dismiss, BO asked the Court to take judicial notice of the fact, FactCheck found him eligible. This is good news. First of all, it obliquely confirms, this is his strongest evidence of legitimacy. And in the military Complaint I drafted and posted weeks ago, for all to see, I completely de-bunk Annenberg Political Fact Check as just another agent of BO. In other words, BO is desperate to get any federal court to take judicial notice of a ‘bad fact,’ so as to avoid having to address this fact when he is served with a Complaint more in line with my military Complaint, as envisioned and written. Berg’s case will be dismissed, because Plaintiff cannot be said to face future liability, being too old to be likely to be called up to serve and have to choose between seemingly opposing duties. Thus, essentially, Berg is asking the Court to issue an Advisory Opinion, which the Court is not allowed to give. It can only rule on a bona fide case or controversy. Since Berg’s Plaintiff faces no real jeopardy, there is no case. Bad news is, even in the process of losing, Berg might stick us all with this bogus ‘judicial notice’ of FactCheck, if he does not Answer appropriately. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: